Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
High Guard titbits are all over the place, but torpedoes and missiles seem to be favoured by the Sword Worlds and the Solomani Confederation.
High Guard Update - Comments Needed!
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
Two minor suggestions for the new book:
1. It would be good when discussing radiation damage on large ships to link in to what happens to Travellers on board a large ship that was hit (do we just roll radiation for them normally each time the ship’s hit by a radioactive weapon?), and also how radiation damage relates to the large scale crew rules in Element Class Cruisers (a nasty capital ship battle could decimate a crew). “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one in this case” springs to mind.
2. Weapon critical hits seem a bit trivial for big ships. Who cares if a turret is destroyed? What’s really scary is losing the spinal mount. Maybe there could be a table to suggest which “random” weapon gets damaged.
1. It would be good when discussing radiation damage on large ships to link in to what happens to Travellers on board a large ship that was hit (do we just roll radiation for them normally each time the ship’s hit by a radioactive weapon?), and also how radiation damage relates to the large scale crew rules in Element Class Cruisers (a nasty capital ship battle could decimate a crew). “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one in this case” springs to mind.
2. Weapon critical hits seem a bit trivial for big ships. Who cares if a turret is destroyed? What’s really scary is losing the spinal mount. Maybe there could be a table to suggest which “random” weapon gets damaged.
GamingGlen
Banded Mongoose
Include details on using ship sensors to scan the ground (planets, moons, etc). How are sensors affected by various atmosphere types? Do planetary governments frown on their lands being scanned?
Couple of more thoughts:
1. I really like the new critical rules (basing severity on the quality of hit rather than its damage), however, this is going to be *brutal* using the current large bay rules, combined with the new bonus for attacking large ships. Attacking capital ships is going to lead to large bays getting +10 to hit, and easily getting severity 6 criticals. I suspect they will need some sort of tweak.
2. In the current high guard there's a major mismatch between meson spinal mounts, where the smallest do 1D * 1000 damage, and meson screens, where the damage blocked is 2D per screen. I think it would make more sense if meson screens were on the same scale as meson guns.
1. I really like the new critical rules (basing severity on the quality of hit rather than its damage), however, this is going to be *brutal* using the current large bay rules, combined with the new bonus for attacking large ships. Attacking capital ships is going to lead to large bays getting +10 to hit, and easily getting severity 6 criticals. I suspect they will need some sort of tweak.
2. In the current high guard there's a major mismatch between meson spinal mounts, where the smallest do 1D * 1000 damage, and meson screens, where the damage blocked is 2D per screen. I think it would make more sense if meson screens were on the same scale as meson guns.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
A base meson gun is 7500 Dt and does 2DD av. 7 × 1000 = 7 000 damage.Tupper said:
7500 Dt is 750 meson screens that prevents 2D × effect per screen. Since there are no negative mods on the Angle Screens roll, the effect can be quite high with a good screen operator. With a really good operator screens can prevent something like 50 damage each IIRC. 750 screens then prevent in the region of 750 × 50 = 37 500 damage.
Screens prevent enough damage, the problem is that they only work once, hence don't work well against several simultaneous attacks, e.g. if an entire battle squadron fires on a single ship.
@Anotherdilbert I completely agree that Meson screens work if held in sufficient numbers… it just seems odd to buy them in such small “denominations”. It feels like you should buy them in sets of 1000 or so.
Also agree that it’s odd that they can only be used once per round. In previous Traveller versions one screen worked against *all* attacks… but woe betide a ship whose screen went down for some reason.
Also agree that it’s odd that they can only be used once per round. In previous Traveller versions one screen worked against *all* attacks… but woe betide a ship whose screen went down for some reason.
paltrysum
Emperor Mongoose
Re: Screens.
We're looking into it. It doesn't take much of an examination of the spinal mount rules to discover that fleet engagements involving ships with large spinal mounts can end quite quickly. The question is: Is that working as intended?
In any case, screens should be at least marginally effective; otherwise, why have them, right?
We're looking into it. It doesn't take much of an examination of the spinal mount rules to discover that fleet engagements involving ships with large spinal mounts can end quite quickly. The question is: Is that working as intended?
In any case, screens should be at least marginally effective; otherwise, why have them, right?
I guess most of my experience is playing Battle Rider. There, ships are pretty safe from Meson guns as long as they have a big enough screen (possibly a big ask if engaging a larger ship). However, if other attacks (i.e. missiles, lasers or particle accelerators) can cause the screen to go down, even temporarily, then the ship is toast.
Particle accelerators are similarly nullified by heavy armour and sand casters, although the latter can be overwhelmed by multiple attacks. Of course in Mongoose Traveller, armour can get whittled away by criticals.
It does feel that the ship examples in the old (Mongoose) high guard have very “token” meson screens, which wouldn’t stop much damage.
Particle accelerators are similarly nullified by heavy armour and sand casters, although the latter can be overwhelmed by multiple attacks. Of course in Mongoose Traveller, armour can get whittled away by criticals.
It does feel that the ship examples in the old (Mongoose) high guard have very “token” meson screens, which wouldn’t stop much damage.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. The bigger the stick, the harder the THAC0.
2. Depends on how meson screens work; they could be directional, in the sense that any attack from that angle is effected, rather than trying to intercept a single light speed energy beam.
2. Depends on how meson screens work; they could be directional, in the sense that any attack from that angle is effected, rather than trying to intercept a single light speed energy beam.
Annatar Giftbringer
Emperor Mongoose
Speaking of X-boats… is it total heresy to suggest giving them… a minimal M-drive…? 
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
paltrysum said:Annatar Giftbringer said:Speaking of X-boats… is it total heresy to suggest giving them… a minimal M-drive…?
For me it is. Mobile xboats are forbidden.
Ditto.
It would be good to add the mail array, though, or else it has too much cargo capacity.
The whole point of the x-boat was driven by LBB design rules when all you could fit into the engineering department was a j-4 (D?) drive. Now the rules are different, but if you give it an m-drive, it destroys the whole x-boat ecosystem.
I made some 200 ton j-4 versions with an m-drive (and I'm sure others have) for use beyond the border, where tenders wouldn't be deployed, but for within the Imperium, no m-drive. We can call it a budgetary consideration if nothing else...
Old School
Mongoose
paltrysum said:Annatar Giftbringer said:Speaking of X-boats… is it total heresy to suggest giving them… a minimal M-drive…?
For me it is. Mobile xboats are forbidden.
m-drive on an X-Boat? Smells like Heresy!
(and yes, we all know the lack of an m-drive doesn't really make sense)
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Legacy.
Though even a hundred kilogramme manoeuvre drive would be tonnes faster than a solar sail.
Though even a hundred kilogramme manoeuvre drive would be tonnes faster than a solar sail.
Earthfall10
Mongoose
A system that I think could really use some balancing and clarification are Manufacturing Plants (pg. 62). The big clarification I think they could use is, what materials do they require? As far as I can tell, there is not guidance on what type of materials or how many tons of materials a manufacturing plant requires to make a ton of product. This makes it difficult to judge how much profit a manufacturing planet would make because their raw material costs are unspecified, and it also means they cannot interface with the Mineral Refinery and Smelter system. Currently if I want to make an exploration ship with manufacturing plants for making spare parts or other supplies, I do not know how many mining drones or smelters I would need to support them. I think either a general material cost for each type of manufacturing plant, or a materials list in the Trade Goods by Plant Type table would be a huge help in that regard. Just some guidelines or examples for a GM to go off of when attempting to use them in undeveloped star systems where we can’t assume raw materials are being supplied by local industry.
The counterpoint some people have brought up is that Manufacturing plants should remain vague to prevent players from using them, because as they currently stand, their profits vary wildly depending on the trade good they are making, and on the high end they can be staggeringly lucrative. I think a way to address that balance issue would be making manufacturing plant output work the same a shipyard output, ie instead of making x tons of goods per day, they make x credits of goods per day. That way the more expensive and presumably more complex products like robots take longer to make, so the different trade goods make roughly the same profit per day. Higher price per ton goods will need fewer tons of raw material per credit, so they will still be a bit more profitable, but the profits per day won't be as wildly different, and so other factors like local demand or trade codes could play a bigger role and make things more dynamic. Also making their profit more consistent, and low, could make them less of a get rich quick method if players decide to use them. This could let small plants be a somewhat useful utility item on certain player ships, for making spares or equipment on long voyages, while not overshadowing trading.
The counterpoint some people have brought up is that Manufacturing plants should remain vague to prevent players from using them, because as they currently stand, their profits vary wildly depending on the trade good they are making, and on the high end they can be staggeringly lucrative. I think a way to address that balance issue would be making manufacturing plant output work the same a shipyard output, ie instead of making x tons of goods per day, they make x credits of goods per day. That way the more expensive and presumably more complex products like robots take longer to make, so the different trade goods make roughly the same profit per day. Higher price per ton goods will need fewer tons of raw material per credit, so they will still be a bit more profitable, but the profits per day won't be as wildly different, and so other factors like local demand or trade codes could play a bigger role and make things more dynamic. Also making their profit more consistent, and low, could make them less of a get rich quick method if players decide to use them. This could let small plants be a somewhat useful utility item on certain player ships, for making spares or equipment on long voyages, while not overshadowing trading.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Overheads don't tend to be covered, nor licences, taxation and all sorts of costs, both governmental and private.
Not to mention possible supply chain bottlenecks.
Not to mention possible supply chain bottlenecks.
